THE Christmas rush is perhaps responsible for the under-reporting of the meeting organised by Kirkbymoorside Town Council on December 12. Might I attempt to bridge the gap with my own “take” on the proceedings?

The council had, commendably and perhaps in response to fears expressed locally, organised a presentation by geologists from ReFINE (the Research Fracking in Europe project at Durham University).

The speakers concentrated on the likelihood of fracturing itself contaminating aquifers, on the seriousness of the risks involved and on the question of well integrity – the preventing of the release of highly-toxic gases from wells during the fracking process (or drilling process, where fracking does not take place, as in the development of conventional gas exploration), and, after decommissioning of the well.

The speakers were able to assuage some fears of aquifer contamination during the fracturing process, the distance between the aquifers and the fractures being considerable, although no such assurances could be given that over time these fractures would not interact with existing faults to imperil water supplies.

Seismicity, they considered, had historically proven not to be a great risk, the events so far of no great magnitude. However, given the different character of British shale, this was largely terra incognita.

The question of well integrity proved a rather more worrying area for some. Historically, wells had leaked, and the emissions were of course likely to be noxious. Over time it was considered that all wells would leak. Given this, it was particularly worrying that onshore there was no provision for the monitoring of the 2,000-plus decommissioned wells, conventional or otherwise. Indeed in many cases it was not possible to trace the owners of abandoned wells.

After the presentation, the scientists took questions from the audience. They revealed inter alia that it would be impossible for an exploratory company to estimate how many wells would be likely in a given area until the extent of the commercially viable deposits of gas were known. All they could say was that thousands of wells would be necessary if the gas were to be extracted.

The speakers conceded they were not, as geologists, qualified to answer questions on such subjects as traffic disruption, the disposal of toxic waste water after fracturing, effects on the physical environment and on global warming through the continuing dependence on fossil fuels, the human environment as a result of fracking, and on health questions. They agreed that these were legitimate concerns.

I hope that this trail blazer from Kirkbymoorside Town Council will act as a catalyst for the other local authorities. In my opinion, the input by informed yet neutral scientists proved, despite my earlier fears, an inspired method for opening up the topic.

David Cragg-James, Stonegrave